Proposition
8 is an amendment to California’s State Constitution. It was passed by
a comfortable margin via ballot initiative in 2008. Prop 8 maintained
the age-old definition of marriage in the Golden State as requiring
binary male-female compatibility. It remains tied-up in Federal Court
today.

Back in
February of 2010 it became rumored
that retired Federal Judge Vaughn Walker – who presided over the case
at the District level – was a practitioner of the homosexual lifestyle.
It was further reported that he had a longtime male lover. Judge Walker
refused to confirm or deny the rumors. At the time I was one of the few
people to publicly
call for his recusal. It’s inexplicable that attorneys defending
Prop 8 didn’t make such a motion.

With
Judge Walker’s recent admission that he does in fact practice
homosexuality, the case for recusal has been proven. His ruling on the
Prop 8 case should be immediately vacated as he possessed both an
incontrovertible and disqualifying conflict of interest.

Federal
law is clear

The code of
judicial conduct requires that a judge step
down from a case if “the judge's impartiality might reasonably be
questioned,” or when he “has a financial ... or any other interest that
could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.”

By
manufacturing from thin air a Constitutional “right” to same-sex
“marriage” – something the Framers of the US Constitution could not
have conceptualized, much less endorsed – Judge Walker abused his
position on the bench to create for himself a new privilege that he
previously did not possess. It’s undeniable that he had an “interest
that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the
proceeding.”

Stemming from
his own bizarre and
contrived legal findings in the case, Judge Walker’s ruling made it
possible for both he and his male sexual partner to “marry.” Prior to
his ruling he could not. Subsequent to his ruling – and if the ruling
is upheld – he could. This is not opinion. It’s an objective matter of
fact. Judge Walker unilaterally and arbitrarily gave himself a
newfangled “right.”

Furthermore,
the U.S. Code,
Section 455 (a) states: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the
United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” U.S.C. Section 455 (b)
(1) also states that a judge must be disqualified if he “has a personal
bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed
evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.”

No
reasonable person can deny that Judge Walker held a “personal bias” as
his decision directly affected him on a very personal level.

A
few proponents of so-called “gay marriage” have slapped me in the face
with the following red herring: “Why, using your logic a heterosexual
judge would also have to recuse himself. No judge could ever preside
over a case involving same-sex ‘marriage.’”

This is
apples-to-oranges nonsense

On a
case concerning the novel question of
radically redefining marriage to include same-sex pairs, a heterosexual
judge, by definition, would not possess a personal “interest that could
be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.” A
heterosexual judge is precisely what Federal law requires under such
circumstances.

By analogy,
if a Federal Judge were
presiding over a case to determine the merits of a new gambling law,
and that judge happened to have a gambling addiction, law would require
that he recuse himself due to a clear conflict of interest. At a
minimum, “the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Or
consider an instance where a judge crossed state lines to legally use
medical marijuana for cancer treatment. If he were later presented with
a case covering issues related to the legality of medical marijuana, he
would necessarily be disqualified and also expected to recuse himself.

An
honorable man – an honorable judge must step down from any case where
there is even the remote appearance of a conflict. In Judge Walker’s
situation, the conflict proved to be absolute.

His
was the textbook example of a conflict requiring recusal. It’s now the
textbook example of judicial activism. This outrageous decision must be
vacated and attorneys defending Prop 8 should immediately file a motion
to that effect.